ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2003) and S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-310 et seq. (Supp. 2003) upon the filing of an application by Petitioner Juanita L.
Garcia, d/b/a El Sol Restaurant (“Petitioner”), for an on-premises beer and wine permit for a location
at 3294 North Highway 25, Travelers Rest, South Carolina (“the subject location”). Some concerned
citizens protested the application. The Respondent South Carolina Department of Revenue
(“Department”) was excused from attending the hearing on the basis of its own motion. After careful
consideration and for the following reason, the Petitioner’s application is denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony and arguments presented at the hearing of this
matter, and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following
findings of fact by a preponderance of the evidence:
1.Notice of the time, date, place, and subject matter of the hearing was given to all
parties and to the Protestants in a timely manner.
2.Petitioner seeks an on-premise beer and wine permit for the subject location of 3294
North Highway 25, Travelers Rest, South Carolina. Petitioner operates a restaurant at this location.
3.Petitioner and her husband listed 3294 Highway 25 North, Traveler’s Rest, South
Carolina, the address of the subject location, as their home address on the application and stated that
they have been residents of South Carolina since February 1, 2003. However, Petitioner possessed
a Florida Driver’s License and her husband a North Carolina Driver’s License at the time of the
application and as of the date of the hearing. Neither had a South Carolina Driver’s License at the
time of the hearing. Under South Carolina law, if the Petitioner and her husband have been residents
of South Carolina since February 1, 2003, they would have been required to get a South Carolina
Driver’s license by May 2, 2003. The family’s motor vehicle, as of the date of the hearing, was still
registered in North Carolina. Under South Carolina law, if the Petitioner and her husband have been
residents of South Carolina since February 1, 2003, they would have been required to register their
vehicle in South Carolina by March 18, 2003. S.C. Code Ann. § 56-3-210 (Supp. 2003). The
Petitioner is registered to vote in Florida and her husband in North Carolina. The structure next to
the subject location that the Petitioner stated she lives in did not have electricity as of the date of the
hearing. The SLED agent who investigated Petitioner’s application accepted a telephone bill as the
basis for his determination that the Petitioner was a resident of South Carolina, which I find to be
insufficient to establish residency. There is no requirement that a person be a resident of South
Carolina to have a phone here. The phone number listed is to a phone in the subject location, not in
the house next to it.
4.The Petitioner’s husband stated that he is a resident of North Carolina.
5.The Petitioner presented no documentary evidence which would establish that she is
a resident of South Carolina as of the date of the hearing, nor any which would establish that she was
a resident of South Carolina and maintained her principal place of abode in this State for at least 30
days before the date of the application.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the above findings of fact I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1.S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 2003) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative
Law Judge Division (“ALJD”) to hear contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act
(“APA”). Furthermore, S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2003) grants the ALJD the
responsibilities to determine contested matters governing alcoholic beverages, beer and wine.
2.S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 2003), which sets forth the requirements for the
issuance of a beer and wine permit, provides in part:
No permit authorizing the sale of beer or wine may be issued unless . . .
(2) The retail applicant ... has been a legal resident of this State
for at least thirty days before the date of application, and has
maintained his principal place of abode in the State for at least
thirty days before the date of application.
S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (2) (Supp. 2003).
3.The Petitioner has not established that she has been a legal resident of this State for
at least thirty days before the date of her application and that she has maintained her principal place
of abode in the State for at least thirty days before the date of her application. Therefore, this
application must be denied.
4.Due to the denial of the application on the basis set forth above, the other issues raised
during the proceeding will not be addressed.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s application for an on-premises beer and
wine permit for the location at 3294 North Highway 25, Travelers Rest, South Carolina, is denied;
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
February 2, 2004
Columbia, South Carolina |
